|
Batman would! What were we talking about again?
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
Murdering people in their beds and getting away with it because you hold property rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:If one of Gotham cops just popped The Joker in the back of the squad car, would anyone here cry foul? We gotta get specific here. How many crimes has the Joker committed? Is this just the first jewelry store he has shot up and he has only killed a few innocent people? Yeah I'd probably be uncomfortable with cops just straight popping some random clown murderer; what if he didn't do it? ... But the multi-year gas-Gotham-and-laugh practically our homegrown Osama Joker? I wouldn't be the guy who is gonna complain that rear end in a top hat got shot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
More specifically, because you hold property rights and the filthy poors Occupying your space for free do not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Multiple questions, just because you didn't put a question mark doesn't mean they aren't questions.twodot posted:Do you have any case law on this? In a situation where I have 1) hands and 2) a gun, and two intruders I believe to be dangerous, I don't see a way of applying minimum force to the situation, or rather the minimum force that will be successful is shooting them. Note New Zealand doesn't even require my belief that they are dangerous is reasonable: twodot posted:My understanding is that perceived threat was that they were holding a gun, and we don't get to test the reasonableness of that perception. Like it's cool that you can make assertions, but it's not very impressive unless you actually give your reasoning. Whether he was on his own property the or not is irrelevant. He went into a building actively searching based on prior knowledge knowing there were squatters. His intention was to confront the squatters, had readied a weapon. Every step of the way he was escalating. He became a vigilante. He precipitated the danger. Reasonable action would have been call cops to clear the place out and secure the building. Reasonableness does get tested and is part of uncovering the intention(s) and more importantly whether those intention(s) were “in the defence of himself or another”. quote:34 The New Zealand test for self-defence contains both a subjective and an objective element. The fact-finder must determine what the defendant believed the circumstances to be when he or she resorted to the use of force. This is a subjective inquiry. The defendant’s belief need not be reasonable, although lack of reasonableness may influence the fact-finder in deciding whether the defendant genuinely held that belief. The question whether the defendant was acting “in the defence of himself or another” is also subjective: the answer depends on whether this was the defendant’s intention in the circumstances as the defendant saw them.[46]
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Point of order: Batman doesn't kill people
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:If one of Gotham cops just popped The Joker in the back of the squad car, would anyone here cry foul?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So throw a bullet tantrum, and think up a good story, and you're in the clear. This is just and good. Yes? Murderion posted:It's notable that in the UK, protection of property does not give you grounds to shoot at minorities. Self defense is also not grounds for ownership of a firearm in Britain. VitalSigns posted:Because instigating an armed confrontation in the middle of the night iver some property you've abandoned for a decade is being reckless with people's lives and safety? Taeke posted:A lot of these protections… that are designed to protect the killer from unnecessary grief (from an investigation) in the case it were justified, which just doesn't compute for me. If I were to kill a person in self defense, in an 'ideal' situation where it were their life or mine and I could 100% justifiably make the choice to take their life to save mine, that being properly investigated would be the least of my worries because I just ended someone else's life. gently caress, the argument could even be made that submitting myself to a proper investigation, getting all angles looked at etc, would be to my benefit because either (1) I'll be completely vindicated and it'll just give me reassurance I made the right choice in taking the other's life, or (2) I wasn't justified in taking their life which could be either punished for and depending on that reason, or I could be made to understand how and why I came to the decision to do what I did, helping me to move on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Batman quote:A muscle-bound martial artist equipped with body armor and a billion dollars' worth of weapons versus a thin homeless man in clown makeup with several crippling mental illnesses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
quote:Yes as this would be a reasonable and sane thing to do. Not doing so gets you Reeva Steenkamp. oohhboy posted:I don't much appreciate you trying to trip me up by flooding me with irrelevant questions when said questions have been asked and answered. If you like, you can follow the case law inside that link that the article is based on. I don't have to give my reasoning as others far more studied have already made clear far better than I can how the Law works in NZ and it is self evident as to how it applies to the past 3 mentioned cases. quote:In any case, the Homeless killer had sought the situation he found himself in. Not only did he fail to make any attempt to prevent violence, he initiated it making him the attacker. At that point it would be the two homeless acting in self defence had they the ability to respond. You don't get to play Rambo under our law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Murdering people in their beds and getting away with it because you hold property rights. ~*justamericathings*~
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
American Les Miserables. SCENE: Prisoner 24601, newly released, slinks hopelessly along a city street in Montana. A kindly businessman, knowing there have been burglaries recently and taking pity on this sad figure, sets down a generous silver dining set in the garage, complete with two heavy solid silver candlesticks: a kings' ransom. The man slips in, reaches toward the candlesticks, and a shotgun blast hits him straight in the face. The kind businessman apologizes to the silverware for using it this way, but encourages it to have pity for all the other helpless property in the neighborhood, no longer at this criminal's mercy. SCENE: A young girl runs away from her owners, depriving them of the just returns on their investment. They are forced, wailing and crying, to sell their wedding rings to make up for the loss. Melancholy orchestra music. SCENE: That young girl, now 10 years older, in a helpless abandoned building. She has used it and abused it, sleeping there without paying a dime. Suddenly, the property owner returns, heroically gunning her down as she begs on floor. "I think she had a gun or something, who knows what she was capable of, just look what she did to property that wasn't even hers". SCENE: A noble policeman, dedicated to his craft, observes due process and fully respects the rights of a suspect who committed the heinous crime of running from a cop. Yet the judge doesn't order the death penalty. Realizing he could have just shot the man in the back and claimed he felt threatened, the policeman sees his devotion to justice has put him on the side of the criminal all along. The contradiction is too great for him to bear, he drowns himself in the Hudson river. The thirty minutes of action concluded, the audience is treated to a 90-minute lecture on the ravages welfare inflicts on the tax payer, and how no one would have to die if we all complied with the police in good cheer. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You literally quoted a hypothetical where I talked about living alone, and therefore not being in danger of shooting my supermodel girlfriend through the bathroom door. Good job. Your first statement is a straw man where you deemed the only reaction to an unknown in the vicinity of your dwelling was to shoot an unknown target as you first response, an immensely irresponsible thing to do even if you were fighting a war. The law commission monograph points out the relevant statute in the first sentence, it then states the 4 tests required to assert self-defence with a 5th in relation to battered defendants. As battered defendants cases are more complex than normal self defence, it rightly spends more time discussing it. Your third statement has been answered previously. He had the foresight to bring lethal force into a situation where he perceived a life and limb situation yet entered anyway. His actions were offensive in nature. He stopped being the defender and became the attacker. Dead Reckoning posted:I think it’s crazy that a person can be held criminally liable for shooting at two people who indisputably broke into his home to rob him. I also disagree with the idea that a citizen should have to provide a “good reason” to the government in order to own things or do things, rather than the government having to provide a good reason (subject to judicial review) why they should not. If the last part about his political leans are true, he is pretty much considered Nazi-like in the UK given his party endorsements. Dead Reckoning posted:I’m flabbergasted that someone following this thread would say, “Yeah, I’m just going to subject myself to police detention, an investigation, and subsequent trial, because if I didn’t do anything wrong I have nothing to fear, right?” The Justice Minster in the 2nd of November 2004 on matters of self defence. quote:Self-defence laws are clear, says Goff
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think it’s crazy that a person can be held criminally liable for shooting at two people who indisputably broke into his home to rob him. I also disagree with the idea that a citizen should have to provide a “good reason” to the government in order to own things or do things, rather than the government having to provide a good reason (subject to judicial review) why they should not. The government has failed to give a good reason that I should not own an attack helicopter, therefore... There will always be a line on what the government should not allow private citizens to own, or should restrict ownership of. In the UK this line is set in a different place to the states. It's worth noting that "legitimate grounds" for ownership of a firearm includes sport and target shooting (ie for fun). You're just not allowed to own one for the express purpose of killing another human being, no matter how justified you may be at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:American Les Miserables. You could probably produce this and there'd be enough arguments over whether or not you're serious that it becomes a hit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Murderion posted:The government has failed to give a good reason that I should not own an attack helicopter, therefore... You absolutely can own a helicopter gunship in the United States though.  You can own tanks too, if you hate money.In the UK, you can't carry a knife with a locking blade without a "good reason." I don't care if the government lets me have guns for "sporting purposes" because 1) I object to the idea that I have to give the government a "good reason" for doing things rather than the government having to have a good reason I shouldn't, and 2) it really means that the government gets to determine what "sporting purposes" and sporting guns are legitimate. If I want to shoot skeet with a Streetsweeper or a SPAS-12, what business is it of theirs or anyone else? Also, I can't own a gun to protect myself, but if I happen to kill an armed intruder with one of my fine hunting over-unders, well, that's totally sporting? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Kill everyone IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:American Les Miserables. Do you hear the Freepers sing? Singing the songs of angry men. It is the music of minorities Who'll not trespass again. When the firing of your guns, Equals the bleeding of their lungs, It is a life about to end when tomorrow comes. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You absolutely can own a helicopter gunship in the United States though. The reasoning is simple, by saying you are buying a gun for self-defence you are making an implication that you intent to do bodily harm with it. It is to protect you from owning a weapon for the wrong reasons and acts as a test of character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:The reasoning is simple, by saying you are buying a gun for self-defence you are making an implication that you intent to do bodily harm with it. It is to protect you from owning a weapon for the wrong reasons and acts as a test of character. Unless the intent is only to deny access to firearms to people too dumb to learn the phrase "It's for ducks."
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
I'm not really comfortable with the government deciding off the bat that I could never have a legitimate need or reason to defend myself, or the government assessing my character before deciding what I may and may not do. Also, if I tell the government man that my shotgun is for clays, and buy one of the ones that the government has decided it is OK for me to shoot clays with, and I later use it to shoot a person who is trying to kill me, will I be in trouble for using it for a wrong purpose?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
I have a feeling you'd be hosed after shooting a sleeping couple in an abandoned property using the justification that you considered a boner to be a gun and were just looking for some birds to hunt. hth
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
"I shouldn't have to ask government's permission to own a gun what tyranny! They'll abuse their power!" "What if the government just shoots you for having a gun (or claims they thought you did) and they say they felt threatened?" "That's fine! They shouldn't have to prove a thing, who are we to second-guess the government!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not really comfortable with the government deciding off the bat that I could never have a legitimate need or reason to defend myself, or the government assessing my character before deciding what I may and may not do. After reading your posts I'm really comfortable with the government making that decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
It doesn't disallow you to use a gun for self defence, it just sets the bar higher for the use force. I would be far more worried if the government didn't assess the character and ability of someone who are to use something that is dangerous, more so if it is inherently lethal. Your comfort is not my concern. But given how terrible/incompetent/barbaric your police and justice system is, I understand where some of that discomfort might come from. However this does not excuse your flippant disregard for life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Breaking into a house (even one you think is empty), ignoring calls to come out, then making quick movements (possibly with an unlit flashlight in hand) during the confrontation is actually pretty reckless. Carrying a gun when there is the chance for a violent confrontation could just as easily be construed as prudence (I know at least a couple of property owners/managers in my area who do so)- what exactly is prudent about breaking and entering to squat? Ultimately it seems absurd that someone entering their property legally could be construed as a legal provocation against someone there illegally, regardless of how the parties are armed. What are you talking about. If it wasn't necessary to go in there, and he thought it was likely enough there would be an armed confrontation that he needed a gun, then going in there in the middle of the night wasn't prudent at all. Call the cops (let's assume for the sake of argument that the cops wouldn't just shoot everyone  ).I have a legal right to go into my workplace or into a warehouse that I own, but if I hear that someone has broken in, that doesn't give me the right to grab my gun and go play vigilante. Even putting the lives of the dead squatters aside here, this man could have very easily gone to jail with a different jury. Or he could have gotten himself killed if the squatters felt threatened, didn't know who he was, and shot first. Not seeking out situations where you might have to use a gun in self-defence is just basic expected prudence. Defending yourself in your home at night from a break-in is one thing, but I give a pretty skeptical eye to people who arm up and go create an explosive situation where there's no good reason it has to be. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I’m surprised to see you of all people opposing the castle doctrine, since I’m pretty sure you took the opposite position in the gun control thread. That said, killing someone with no other witnesses has always been a pretty good way to get away with murder, but I don’t think we should shift the burden onto the accused in order to make sure no guilty person ever goes free. I've never approved of castle doctrine. I don't have a problem with making people who kill in self defense sweat a little bit. When you dig down into the reasoning of a lot of pro-gun people, it really comes down to "but what if I kill somebody in what I think was self-defense, but I made a mistake?" Then go to prison, that's what.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I've never approved of castle doctrine. I don't have a problem with making people who kill in self defense sweat a little bit. When you dig down into the reasoning of a lot of pro-gun people, it really comes down to "but what if I kill somebody in what I think was self-defense, but I made a mistake?" Then go to prison, that's what. But it's my right to protect myself, if I kill a few trick-or-treaters every once in a while I guess that's just the cost of my peace of mind. You know, this kind of thinking is almost... wait, isn't this the same argument police apologists use? Their job(home) is dangerous, can't fault them for killing every once in a while! ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You absolutely can own a helicopter gunship in the United States though. It's a drat rare thing for me to be proud of my country. You just made me feel proud of Britain, I hope you are happy. And yeah, you also are not allowed to keep a bat or anything else specifically around in case someone breaks in, because that would be mental. We have these things called "police" that will respond and arrive at the goddamn house and take the burgular away. Even if we don't you go down stairs, turn on some lights and usually any burgular is long gone. Because virtually no-one in this country is armed we don't have to worry about someone breaking in to kill and murder our families. And if you kill an intruder it turns out that you will probably be sent to prison for a very long time because peoples lives matter more than you getting away with pissing about in a house with a gun and feeling "threatened".
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
You know, how long were the squatters squatting? If they were there long enough (usually around a month I think) and nobody told them to vacate the place they earned tenant's rights. Squatters actually have certain rights and if the property is very abandoned and obviously abandoned they had every right to be there. In fact in some areas it's perfectly legal to break into, occupy, and use a building that is abandoned. Use it long enough and it becomes yours. What I'm saying is that if the guy was neglecting the building and not even watching it he is not within his rights to literally murder two people that were legally likely to be his tenants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Here comes Bernie. http://www.alternet.org/bernie-sanders-pledges-end-no-child-left-behind-shut-down-profit-prisons quote:Bernie Sanders Intends to Strike at Heart of Prison Industrial Complex
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Here comes Bernie. To be fair, pretty much everyone from Rand leftward says things like that. Even Obama did, and we see what outcomes we got from all those words.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:To be fair, pretty much everyone from Rand leftward says things like that. Even Obama did, and we see what outcomes we got from all those words. One of those words is "education" used as a verb. The political will to say that you want to fix prisoners to reintroduce them into society instead of have them publicly flogged forever because they smashed a window and stole a mouthful of bread will bury you in any jurisdiction on this continent. Can't be "soft on crime", like those filthy euros with their vacation prisons and miniscule incarceration & recidivism rates, you gotta punish them Josef bugman posted:And yeah, you also are not allowed to keep a bat or anything else specifically around in case someone breaks in, because that would be mental. We have these things called "police" that will respond and arrive at the goddamn house and take the burgular away. Even if we don't you go down stairs, turn on some lights and usually any burgular is long gone. Because virtually no-one in this country is armed we don't have to worry about someone breaking in to kill and murder our families. But if the police are minutes away and you only have seconds to deal with an intruder with a knife in your house then you'll need a gun to kill him, but if he knows you have a gun then he'll bring a gun to shoot you first because that's totally what burglars do is kill people all the time, so knowing that if you hear him set one foot on the driveway you blow that fucker away because of freedom. You're applying perfectly sane gunless-country logic to a society in which it no longer applies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What are you talking about. If it wasn't necessary to go in there, and he thought it was likely enough there would be an armed confrontation that he needed a gun, then going in there in the middle of the night wasn't prudent at all. Call the cops (let's assume for the sake of argument that the cops wouldn't just shoot everyone Where does this duty to not enter property I own come from again? Sounds like you're getting pretty close to blaming victims here- wanting to secure your property from invasion and possible adverse possession is perfectly understandable (even if you think it may not be prudent (and I actually agree to a point- carrying a gun was prudent, entering the place probably wasn't even though it was his right). But why are we only expecting prudence from the property owner again? Are the squatters incapable of it? They're the ones who got the ball rolling here and really they're the ones who created the "explosive situation" (a situation they had no right to create, unlike the property owner) in the first place- there wouldn't have been a confrontation had they not broken in and ignored the calls to come out (then acting in a manner that could be interpreted as aggressive when confronted didn't help). Squatting doesn't deserve the death penalty, but simply carrying a gun while entering your property doesn't deserve a murder conviction either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Umm pretty sure on top of just entering the property with a gun, it also included blasting some dudes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Umm pretty sure on top of just entering the property with a gun, it also included blasting some dudes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
No, they're citing the fact that he killed them as further proof of that. If he entered and was like "get out", we'd have no discussion. We have no issues with police pulling people over. Blasting the driver with 8 shots in the back with a rifle. "You don't want cops pulling people over!?@ Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
Are we talking about Wayne Burgarello? Cause that guy was acquitted of shooting those scary meth drug using strangers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:No, they're citing the fact that he killed them as further proof of that. And according to him he did yell "get out" several times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:07 |
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Lol you can't read intent into carrying a gun like that. Do you wear a seatbelt expecting "likely enough" to be in a car accident? Or do you wear one because it isn't a big deal and might be useful in the possibility of a car accident regardless how remote? Wearing a gun isn't that big of deal most places in this country. Well, ordinarily we think of morality in terms of ends and means with the understanding that individuals with fewer available means have a diminished obligation to achieve the best possible ends (I'm explaining this to you as if you were a child because that's what you're acting like hth). Sure, technically, in some universes, under a very specific and highly questionable version of right and wrong, dying from exposure as a gesture of good will towards your fellow man both counts as both a noble sacrifice and a less irresponsible course of action than being a squatter, but it on no loving planet except the moon you live on is squatting more irresponsible than deliberately confronting and then executing squatters (ends) despite about a hundred different alternatives (means) available. Like wow it's just super idiotic to accuse squatters of creating an "explosive" situation. They very worst thing they are guilty of could result in no worse an end than harm coming to themselves, so yes it's actually just a shitload more "prudent" or whatever than planning and executing an ambush on two people sleeping in a vacant home. Not to mention the fact that the very existence of a vacant home and two homeless people side by side is itself a from of (easily correctable) wrongdoing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 14:06
|
|